The Lebanese style of democracy of no winners or losers

On the 6th of May 2018, Lebanese voters went to their polling booths to vote for members of Parliament. This was the first Parliamentary election since 2009, nearly a decade ago, even though the regular parliamentary term is only four years. And for the first time in Lebanon’s history, the Lebanese diaspora were able to vote in their representative embassies.

So why did it take almost a decade for the Lebanese Government to call for elections? This is a simple and straight forward question to ask, but to answer it, brings another question. Why was Lebanon left without a President from the 25th of May 2014 till the 31st of October 2016?

For nearly two and a half years, Lebanon did not have a head of state. And for the first time since its inception, the highest position in the Lebanese Government was headed by a Muslim, a Sunni Muslim. “Grand Liban” (or Grand Lebanon) as the French named it after they decided how far its borders should be expanded to move it away from those of the former and smaller Mount Lebanon Mutasasarrifate (aka Le Petit Liban), was meant to be a state that has a Christian Catholic Maronite President as decreed by its constitution. The Presidential power vacuum however “left” Lebanon in the hands of the Prime Minister (Tammam Salam), who also as decreed by the Lebanese Constitution, has to be a Sunni Muslim.

For two and a half years therefore, Lebanon, a state that the French decreed should be one with a Christian Maronite President, was left in the hands of a Muslim Sunni Prime Minister.

Did Lebanon turn Muslim Sunni as a result?

One can take one’s pick to decide who to ask this question, and the answer one receives will probably not be any more or less convincing than the expectation and interpretation of the inquisitor.

That said, there is no doubt that Saudi Arabia tried very hard to push its religious agenda onto Lebanon. As a matter of fact, during the beginning of the second decade of the 21st Century, and specifically as the “War on Syria” took form, Lebanon and Lebanese politicians and power brokers, for better or for worse, played a big role in the Syrian tragedy. Part of this power play was the aggressive, extremely highly funded and fundamentalist Saudi push to control Lebanese politics; not only for the sake of controlling Lebanon, but also for the sake of using Lebanon as a springboard to hit Syria in the soft underbelly that is naturally protected by impenetrable valleys, cliffs and caves.

There is no doubt also that Iran was intensifying its presence in Lebanon and influence on its politics and day-to-day affairs with Hezbollah as its ally.

Ideologies aside, the Hezbollah/Iran coalition had well-earned stripes on its shoulders as it managed to successfully defeat the Israeli occupation of Lebanon leading up to a total Israeli defeat on the 25th of May 2000. The Saudi camp and its cohorts did not have similar stripes to grace their shoulders with. They therefore hoped that by toppling the Syrian Government, a government they see as a combination of being secular, Shiite and pro-Iranian, then despite the oxymoronic definition of their nemesis, with limitless funds and beating the sectarian Sunni-Shiite drums, they were sure to get not only stripes on their shoulders, but also stars and the highest of all insignia.

But official Lebanon had to play the balance game, because in Lebanon, there is an unwritten law that in all conflicts and politics, there will be no winners and no losers.

It was according to this unwritten law that the first post-independence civil strife of 1958 in Lebanon was ended. The strife was instigated by a predominantly Muslim pan-Arab passion to join the newly formed United Arab Republic (UAR), which encompassed Egypt and Syria. The then Lebanese President Chamoun and his supporters were against such integration, even cordial relationships, and stood up for independence. The seven-month strife ended as Chamoun’s term as president finished, and the elected president’s former army chief, Chehab, was leaning towards the principles of the “revolution” but was neither willing nor able to take any action either way.

No winners, no losers.

In theory, this principle works and should work well if parties concerned put their differences aside and work together. But in Lebanon, only the slogan is what eventuates, but the hostilities and all the bickering that comes with it, lives on.

Soon after that strife, Lebanon embarked on its golden age. Among other things, in a short period of time, it became the economic, banking, touristic and transport hub of the Middle East. Lebanon was deservedly named the Switzerland of the East. But that golden age did not last long, because conflict was around the corner. This time it was fueled by the difference of how Lebanese people and politics viewed the Palestinian cause and resistance and all the foreign interference that came with it.

But even that much longer and bloodier strife of 1975-1989, known as the Civil War, that saw more than 100 thousand civilians killed, the economy destroyed, and Lebanon’s regional status capitulating to the point of no return, that war has also ended in a “no winners no losers” mode. And even though the right wing Christian militia and its leaders were put in the basket of “losers”, they were only partial losers and the political parties that represented them remained there, bruised, but not defeated.

All the while, unlike all “other democracies”, all post-independence Lebanese cabinets have also been based on the “no winners and no losers” principle. The opposition had to always be represented in any cabinet; albeit in the form of a minority. Yes, a minority within a majority government.

This odd situation stipulates that, should the minority be significant enough to score one third of the cabinet positions, it can constitutionally block the government that it is part of; and this has happened on many occasions, especially in the last decade or so when the Iranian and Saudi influences in Lebanese politics reached their peak at times when both sides had their representatives in the Lebanese cabinet.

When the Lebanese Maronites and Druze fought and pillaged each other’s villages and towns in the mid 19thCentury, a council of nations (namely France, Russia, Britain, Austria, Prussia and the Ottoman Empire) convened and decided that Mount Lebanon should have autonomy and be split into a Maronite and a Druze “cantons”.

When the French redrew the border line and created “Grand Liban”, it was perhaps because they thought that a more religiously diverse Lebanon would be less vulnerable to sectarian strife. If all parties were virtual minorities in their own right, the root of conflict could not exist as it would in a situation where there were two almost equal and opposing powers.

Furthermore, by stipulating the religion, and sects, of government officials, the French must have thought that a Lebanon with a Maronite Christian President, a Sunni Muslim Prime Minister, a Shiite Muslim Leader of the House, as well as other allocations that were meant to be pro-rata population based, would be a stable Lebanon that gives rival groups a sense of fairness and; provide the country with political continuity.

The French were wrong, and Lebanon lived and maintained its presence by the virtue of the unwritten law of “no winners and no losers”.

But the events of the last decade or so went beyond the French-mandated Grand Liban borders. The “War on Syria” has clearly resulted in winners and losers; both of which have staunch supporters in Lebanon and Lebanese politics.

The irony here is that even though the outcome of the “War on Syria” was reflected in the outcome of the recent 6th of May 2018 Lebanese elections, and even though the Saudi cohorts in Lebanon have lost many seats and were considered to be “losers”, Lebanese President Aoun, who is pro-Syria, has appointed current Prime Minister, pro-Saudi, Hariri to form the new government.

This is democracy Lebanese style.

At its best, democracy can stink, especially Western Democracy that turns the whole freedom of choice into a charade of two parties dictating who they choose as leader.

In essence and theory, Lebanese style democracy is more democratic than Western style democracy because it does not exclude minorities. After all, in the so-called great democracies of the world, a one seat majority will totally exclude the loser from government. What is democratic about this? In practical terms in Lebanon however, inclusivity of all turns every cabinet into a lame duck that is unable to make and implement any decisions. The presence of corruption at all tiers of government make the situation even more untenable.

The current Lebanese Government cabinet that Hariri is the Prime Minister of already has a balance of power that makes it dysfunctional, even in the ideal and hypothetical absence of any corruption. The new-to-be Lebanese cabinet will be headed by an even weaker Hariri. It can only be more of a government that he can neither control nor even give recommendations to. It is a government that is predestined to be dysfunctional.

And for Hariri to form this cabinet in the first place, he will not only have to balance his own power and appease all of the political parties, winners and losers, but he will also have to appease regional and major powers.

There is nothing surprising in this for those who are Lebanese politics savvy. For as long as Lebanon continues to run under the century-old French heritage of Grand Liban, it will never change, it will never be able to make decisions that are of local, regional or international significance.

Any move towards local reform will please some and anger others if they are not getting any direct benefits from it. This is just one aspect as to why Lebanon is still incapable of rebuilding its electricity power grid after it was destroyed during the civil war, bombed by the Israelis several times, and not to mention that it became outdated by the huge population growth of the last few decades. This is also why Lebanon is still unable to capitalize on this offshore gas wealth, all the while falling gradually into crippling rising debt.

Nothing is more symbolic of the dysfunctionality of Lebanese politics more than rubbish. The Lebanese Government cannot even deal with the country’s refuse as mountains of it are piling up everywhere in the land that was once describe as “the land of milk and honey”. And this is because Lebanese politicians and their followers, cannot agree what to do with it. They all seem to favour the recycling and/or incinerating options, but they cannot agree where those plants should be constructed. Everyone wants them built on the turf of others because they don’t want to have stench in their own neighbourhoods, but in the meantime, the whole country can suffer. At least this way, there are no winners and no losers.

The fear of rivaling Lebanese political and religious groups of each other, the fear of becoming losers and others winners and working around this from within the mantra of no winners and no losers, has for decades been sending the whole country hurtling down into a quagmire of loss for all.

The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

Comment

Name:

E-mail:

13 Comments

They all seem to favour the recycling and/or incinerating options, but they cannot agree where those plants should be constructed. Everyone wants them built on the turf of others because they don’t want to have stench in their own neighbourhoods, but in the meantime, the whole country can suffer.

No need to worry. That’s basically happening everywhere on this planet. Everybody inevitably produces trash, but doesn’t want the landfill nearby. With nuclear power plants the situation is similar. In Germany most Bavarian politicians were extremely in favor of their plants, but they didn’t want to store the nuclear waste (allegedly the Bavarian Alps aren’t suitable for waste that will radiate for thousands of years).

At least with waste there may be some solution: Every person should produce less of it.

Thanks for this article. From a position of relative ignorance I was puzzled as to why the cancerous mole Hariri had been re-appointed prime minister, given the huge increase in electoral support and political representation for HZB & allies. Given also that times have very much changed since ‘Grand Liban’, I would suggest a referendum is in order to ask the current losers (the Lebanese people) whether they are ready for a constitutional change that has a focus on majority government given the power and mandate to lead Lebanon out of it’s current coma-related difficulties.

It seems the world is always being forced to choose between authoritarian governments that make the trains run on time, but which concentrate power into a few hands. Or between governments that truly represent the broad mass of the people, but against whom the authoritarians always cry that they are inefficient and that it would be so much more efficient to simply shoot the people who don’t agree or lock them up in prisons or ghettos.

Lebanon? You sure this isn’t a description of pindoland, both before the zionazi-gay colonization and now, after it? Nothing much positive gets done, while oligarchs and their corrupt politicos make a killing (or two, often both literally and figuratively). Meanwhile, israel, and its minions, get what they want. Always.

But the Southfront report does beg the obvious question – why, for the Israeli led strike, did the Russian military not provide the SADF with the access to operational data from its technical reconnaissance net ahead of the encounter?

With the rest of the world, the English are responsible for many of the problems.

It is the English ideas of a fake democracy that infect the west.

The English use a feudal strong-person system. The nation is divided into districts, then whoever is strongest in that district gets the sole and only voice for that district as representation in the nation’s government. Often this becomes a contest between coalitions, as factions execute an arms-race to achieve the magical 50%+1 that gives them the sole voice of that district in the representative government. In the English “First-past-the-post” system (known as “winner-take-all” in America), the voters are left with being forced to form their own coalitions before election day, as whomever gets the most votes on election day gets the sole ‘vote’ representing that district.

On top of this is added the English word “gerrymandering”, which is the deliberate creation of district maps that give a particular district to one party or the other. These create local one-party states within districts that force citizens to join that one party to have any voice at all within the government.

The focus on 50% being a “first-past-the-post” also means that at a certain point that a political party can ignore and reject those who want to participate. As long as they get their 50% +1 to hold the district, then the rest can be ignored and disinfranchised.

The forcing of voters to form two coalitions means that large groups can be disinfranchised completely. Historically, this was the fate of minority voters within the American Democratic Party. With only two choices, and the other being completely hostile to their cause, the Democrats can be said to ‘own’ the votes of the minority groups come election day as there is no alternative for their votes. Between elections, these minorities are ignored by the Democrats, and thus made powerless in any government.

Proportional Representation is one solution to this, and Lebanon (as I understand it from a distance) used a partial implementation of this. Some seats in parliment were proportionally allocated, while others were votes for who is the strongest in a district. In a proportional system, the number of representatives in a legislature is decided by the percent of the vote achieved.

How is this different from the English feudal system of strongpersons? Lets use America as an example. Lets suppose that 10% of the voters are Libertarian, and 5% of the voters are Green. That means, in a proportional system, the US House should have about 40 Libertarian Representatives and 20 Green Representatives. The US Senate should have about 4 Libertarian Senators and 2 Green Senators. Officiallly, neither of these groups is represented in either body, although there are a few members who call themselves as being in the major corporate parties but who lean towards these groups. Former Rep Ron Paul is the most well known, having run for President as a Libertarian, then taking a congressional seat as a Republican. Former Rep Cynthia McKinney did the opposite, holding the Representative seat as a Democrat, then later running for President as the nominee of the Green Party.

But, in the American system, neither party gets the power of a voting block in the legislature, and neither group gets the name recognition of being a part of the legislature. And voters leaning towards either are constantly told not to “waste-their-votes” and instead to join one of the pre-election coalitions of the Republicans or the Democrats.

What fascinates me about the “no winners or losers” system in Lebanon is that it seems that the idea of proportional representation can be raised to the next level. In most parlimentary democracies, the government is formed from the members of the legislature. As the author says, getting one more seat in the legislature gives all of the power to one party/coalition. So, what if that government also had to be proporational. For example, if the “cabinet” consists of 20 posts, and given the American distributions, shouldn’t the Libertarians get 2 cabinet posts and the Greens 1 cabinet post?

The goal of a real democracy (as opposed to the many fake democracies that exist in the world) is to give the power to the people. Thus, it seems like the rest of the world can learn a bit from the Lebanese system.

What we have in lebanon is a sudo democracy class based society where the same people are “elected” by using religious rallying of people. Having no winners or losers gets everything in a stalemate so nothing gets done. When the Constitution was written we where supposed to have winners and losers and people judge with their vote in the next elections. I know this is idealistic but seperation of state and religion should be our goal and Al Taef wasn’t supposed to be a permanent solution. Identifying the problem should be our goal.People should be judged on their performance. I have never seen tge media discussing laws in detail or actions everone says i did good to the people we did so and so show us the results and let us see if you deserve our votes

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.